"Fencing" the Table
At East River, we practice a form of “open communion” but “fence the table.” In Reformed traditions, "fencing the table" refers to the practice of setting boundaries around who may participate in the Lord's Supper. We set these boundaries by reading the same words of exhortation every week. I can’t remember exactly where I first got these words from. I do know that I softened them some. Their previous form came off as unnecessarily disinviting. So, I tried to re-word it in a way that cautions the flippant but encourages those of a tender conscience.
Here they are…
Brethren,
We are now about to celebrate the Lord’s Supper. This is a spiritual meal for the household of God. And Scripture commands us to examine ourselves before coming to this table and eating this bread and drinking this cup.
There is great benefit if you receive this meal with real repentance and a living faith.
It will be to you a source of spiritual nourishment and further growth in Jesus Christ.
And yet, there is potential danger if we come to this table in an unworthy manner.
So, I must remind you this is a meal only for the covenant family of God.
You must profess Christ as Lord to have God as Father.
You must be baptized in His name into the visible church.
And you must be living in line with these two facts.
Practically, that means you aren’t harboring any unrepentant sin in your heart and that you have demonstrated your submission to God by joining or actively seeking to join a biblical church and submitting yourself to its elders.
Examine your conscience. Is this you? If not, remain seated this time around, and please let us know how we can you partake next time.
That being said, this table isn’t for perfect people. It’s for sinners.
And if you are a repentant sinner who trust in Christ alone for His Salvation and love the household of God, I invite you to be strengthen by this meal.
All you weak, all you needy, all of you who hope alone in Christ come to this table in faith and be blessed by our merciful and gracious Father.
Now, beloved, listen to the words of the institution of the Holy Supper of our Lord Jesus Christ, as they are delivered by the Apostle Paul:
23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes
Join me in prayer.
This is also amazing to me - that there are so few books on the topic. The only book I’ve read that raises most of the questions I have is “The Lord’s Supper is a Meal” by Jim Elliff. It’s free: https://x.com/jimelliff/status/1760007536227295304?s=46&t=hcpKGRXHiWxrr6YIh2CxUg
I mean, one would think a topic as important as one of the two sacraments would have volumes and volumes written on it. Unfortunately, I’ve not found any others that bring up these questions. I’d love to know of others.
But it’s only mentioned for 2-4 verses in 3 of 4 gospels and in 1 Corinthians 11, so there’s not tons in Scripture to go off of in the first place.
Secondarily, another great book on a related topic is “A Meal with Jesus” by Tim Chester, in which he touches on thoughts like this without going into depth on the Lord’s Supper itself.
I’ll step out and admit this: I struggle with what you’ve written. That doesn’t mean I disagree necessarily, just that I struggle with it. I just don’t see much of it in Scripture. I know this might make me sound like a heretic, but please hear me out.
First, I struggle with interpreting “eating in an unworthy manner” the way you seem to. I don’t see Paul mentioning anything about examining your heart to make sure there’s no unrepentant sin (that I can see). He does seem to say that the members of the church in Corinth were eating in disunity, and this is what, it seems to me, he means when he says that members were eating in an unworthy manner. Is it wrong to examine your heart for all unrepentant sin? Of course not! Please don’t hear me saying that.
But why might eating in disunity be “eating in an unworthy manner”? Because you’re to eat in remembrance of Christ. But what does that mean? We seem to gloss over this as if we all understand that it means we’re to recall to our minds the *fact* that His body was broken and poured out for us. But, again, I’m not convinced that’s what it means.
Might it actually not be about the regurgitation of facts, but instead, mean that we’re to partake in this meal as Jesus would? Jesus’ broken body and shed blood gave us a new identity as a part of a unified family of missionary servants. There is no longer male nor female, Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, but all are one through the broken body and shed blood of Christ. So could Paul be saying that eating in disunity is to eat in an unworthy manner? That’s what it seems to me he’s communicating in 1 Cor. 11, that eating in disunity would actually be the opposite of what Christ’s’ broken body and shed blood accomplished, and thus be a meal that spits in the face of Christ rather than being done in his memory.
And might it actually be a meal - a supper - and not just a wafer and a thimble of grape juice? It came from a feast (Passover) and points to a feast (the marriage feast of the Lamb), so why do we assume the Lord’s Supper is not also intended to be a feast? In fact, did the early church not have agape feasts? Seems to me like it’s possible this was more of the intention of what Paul and Jesus had in mind (I’m not sure how members of the church in Corinth got drunk on a thimble of wine).
But this makes it much harder to exclude some people, like our children from the table if it’s, you know, dinner. “Since you, my daughter, as a six year old, haven’t professed faith in Jesus yet, you have to sit in the corner and watch us feast while going without dinner tonight.” That doesn’t make much sense to me.
Would it not make more sense that, those who do claim the new identity in Christ reflect him in this meal (particularly by partaking in unity), while those that don’t are still invited to the table to experience what life in the family of God is like? Those who don’t profess faith aren’t claiming Christ and so the bread and wine don’t carry the same meaning to them - it’s “just” dinner. But by being invited to the table, might they experience a taste of life in God’s family? Might they experience a taste of His goodness and bounty? Might they experience the “one anothers” and through all of this, actually want to become a part of something like this?
Is there a place in Scripture where this is explicitly forbidden, or do we just assume it? I see where we aren’t to eat with those who do profess Christ but don’t act like it, but I’m not sure I see that we necessarily must exclude the unbeliever who does not claim Jesus’ name.
In fact, while I agree it’s not likely, it is in the realm of possibility that Judas was still at the table when Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper. None of the gospel accounts make it explicit.
Again, I struggle because I don’t see in Scripture what so many others seem to see. I don’t want to be arrogant - most evangelical churches I’ve known and ever been a part of see things as you do, or close to it. I often feel like I’m the only one questioning what seems so clear to others. Help me out…where am I going wrong?